Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Kristina Secord, 2023AP000036

Background

The Wisconsin Voter Alliance sought completed Notice of Voting Eligibility (NVE) forms from the Walworth County register in probate through a public records mandamus action. 1
NVE forms are used to communicate to election officials or the Wisconsin Elections Commission that a person in a guardianship proceeding was found incompetent to vote or restored to vote. 2
The circuit court denied disclosure, and the court of appeals ultimately affirmed after remand. 3
Chapter 54 guardianship hearings are closed, and § 54.75 provides that court records pertinent to the finding of incompetency are closed. 4
The NVE form contains guardianship case information and communicates the voting-eligibility determination to election authorities. 5
The majority clarified that in public-records mandamus cases, courts should decide only whether the requester has a right to the records, not all four traditional mandamus elements. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What mandamus standard applies in public-records cases? 7	Alliance urged release under ordinary mandamus prerequisites.	Secord argued the request failed traditional mandamus requirements.	Only entitlement to the records matters; other mandamus elements are irrelevant. 8
Are NVE forms closed under § 54.75? 9	Alliance said NVE forms are after-the-fact communications, not records pertinent to incompetency.	Secord said they are court records tied to the incompetency finding and therefore closed.	Yes. NVE forms are court records pertinent to the finding of incompetency and are closed. 10
Does the public-policy balancing test require disclosure? 11	Alliance argued open records and election transparency favor release.	Secord argued privacy and confidentiality outweigh disclosure.	No balancing test reaches disclosure because § 54.75 creates a statutory exception. 12

Key Cases Cited

Osborn v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 254 Wis. 2d 266, 647 N.W.2d 158 (Wis. 2002) (public records law presumes open access 13)
Hempel v. City of Baraboo, 284 Wis. 2d 162, 699 N.W.2d 551 (Wis. 2005) (public-records analysis asks whether exceptions or balancing test bar disclosure 14)
Hathaway v. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 1, City of Green Bay, 116 Wis. 2d 388, 342 N.W.2d 682 (Wis. 1984) (mandamus issues when no statutory exception or contrary reasons justify withholding 15)
State ex rel. Lewandowski v. Callaway, 118 Wis. 2d 165, 346 N.W.2d 457 (Wis. 1984) (mandamus compels performance of a legal duty 16)
Lake Bluff Hous. Partners v. City of South Milwaukee, 197 Wis. 2d 157, 540 N.W.2d 189 (Wis. 1995) (traditional four-part mandamus test 17)
Newspapers, Inc. v. Breier, 89 Wis. 2d 417, 279 N.W.2d 179 (Wis. 1979) (pre-statute public-records cases focused on whether custodian gave a valid reason to withhold 18)
State ex rel. Morke v. Wis. Parole Bd., 148 Wis. 2d 250, 434 N.W.2d 824 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988) (historical outlier; court overruled its fourth-element analysis to the extent inconsistent 19)
Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 560 N.W.2d 246 (Wis. 1997) (court of appeals must follow controlling published precedent 20)
Wis. Voter All. v. Reynolds, 410 Wis. 2d 335, 1 N.W.3d 748 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023) (published court of appeals decision holding NVE forms closed under § 54.75 21)
Wis. Voter All. v. Secord, 414 Wis. 2d 348, 15 N.W.3d 872 (Wis. 2025) (prior supreme court decision remanding under Cook after conflicting court-of-appeals decisions 22)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (Wis. 2004) (textual statutory interpretation and whole-text canon 23)
Wis. Just. Initiative, Inc. v. WEC, 407 Wis. 2d 87, 990 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. 2023) (statutory words are given their ordinary meaning 24)
State ex rel. Att'y Gen. v. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 440, 51 N.W. 724 (Wis. 1892) (right of suffrage must be guarded against force and fraud 25)